Is Public Artwork Legal in Singapore?

In June 2026, a local power-washing artist, Marcus Pang, spent hours creating a heart-shaped artwork on a pavement outside Mountbatten MRT station, using nothing more than a pressure washer and rainwater to “clean” an image into the grime of the concrete. The piece, meant to depict the “Heart of Mountbatten”, was intended as a gesture of goodwill to the neighbourhood. However, within a day, it was gone – power-washed away by SMRT staff.

The removal sparked a wave of online debate, with members of the public raising questions on public spaces and artistic expression. The Mountbatten incident illustrates a fundamental tension: regardless of an artwork’s creative merit or well-intentioned nature, legal issues may arise depending on where it is created and whether permission was obtained from the relevant authorities.

For instance, an artist could potentially find themselves on the wrong side of several laws, including:

• Vandalism Act, which criminalises certain acts of writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public or private property without permission.
• Penal Code, which covers offences like mischief, trespass and public nuisance.
• Infrastructure Protection Act, which restricts entry to gazetted “protected places”, such as military camps and water treatment plants.
• Property owners’ rights, which generally allow owners and occupiers to control what is done on their property.
• Regulatory requirements imposed by agencies that manage public spaces, which may require prior approval for certain activities.

If you are an artist who creates artwork in public spaces, you may wonder whether your activities stay within the law when creating artwork in public spaces.

This article will discuss:

• Is public artwork legal in Singapore?
• When can public artwork amount to vandalism?
• What other offences could public artwork potentially involve?
• Can the property owner or relevant authority remove the artwork?
• How can artists create public artwork legally?

Is Public Artwork Legal in Singapore?

A common misconception is that public spaces (e.g. pavements, void decks, park connectors) are free-for-all spaces where anyone is permitted to do anything, provided no damage is done. However, this is not the case. Every public space is owned and managed by some entity, which may include:

• Government agencies: Such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA), which manages roads, footpaths, and covered linkways; National Parks Board (NParks), which manages parks, gardens and park connectors; and the Housing & Development Board (HDB), which oversees public housing development, including the structural integrity of buildings, such as pillars and concrete walls.
• Town councils: Manage common property within HDB estates, such as void decks, pavements and hawker centres within their designated towns.
• Transport operators: Such as SMRT and SBS Transit, which manage MRT stations and bus interchanges.
• Private landowners: Such as shopping malls and coffee shops. For instance, CapitaLand manages numerous malls across Singapore, including Plaza Singapura, Tampines Mall, and Funan.

Because these spaces are actively managed, the entity in charge would generally retain the right to decide what may or may not be done on their property, including whether public artwork can be created there. Therefore, public artwork may require prior approval even where:

• The artwork is temporary or would eventually fade, wash away or be removed;
• The artwork causes little or no physical damage to the property; or
• The artwork is created for artistic purposes or community-minded purposes, rather than a desire to deface property.

Whether approval is required, and from whom, will depend on the specific public space. For instance, artwork created on land managed by a town council would generally require the town council’s consent, while artwork created near MRT infrastructure would fall under the purview of the relevant transport operator.

Returning to the Mountbatten incident, the walkway outside the MRT station fell within the area managed by SMRT, so approval from SMRT would generally have been required before the artwork was created. From the reported facts, Marcus does not appear to have obtained such permission from SMRT. Consequently, SMRT was able to remove the piece, regardless of its artistic or community value.

When Can Public Artwork Amount to Vandalism?

The Vandalism Act is Singapore’s primary legislation dealing with this offence. Section 2 of the Act defines an “act of vandalism” to include writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol, etc., without the written permission of an authorised officer of the owner or occupier of the public property or private property.

An act of vandalism is treated seriously. On conviction, an offender is liable to a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment of up to 3 years, and, for certain acts, caning of between 3 and 8 strokes. To illustrate, in an infamous vandalism case, American teenager Michael Fay was sentenced under the Act to 4 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $3,500 (cumulative fine from multiple charges) and 4 strokes of the cane for spray-painting cars and defacing public property.

This raises the natural question: would the Mountbatten power-washing artwork fall within the scope of vandalism? On one hand, power-washing an image onto a dirty pavement does not “write, draw, paint, mark or inscribe” anything new onto the surface in the traditional sense; it removes grime to reveal the underlying concrete. This is arguably distinguishable from ink-based vandalism such as spray-painting or graffiti, which adds substance to the property. Yet, on the other hand, the Act’s definition is broad enough to capture any manner of “marking” a surface, which power-washing could be characterised as. Therefore, it remains unclear whether power-washing would constitute vandalism.

What Other Offences Could Public Artwork Potentially Involve?

Beyond the Vandalism Act, several offences under various statutes may also be relevant, depending on how the artwork was created.

Protected areas

Certain locations in Singapore are gazetted as “protected places” under the Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA), which repealed and replaced the former Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (PAPPA). These are typically sites of national security or critical infrastructure importance, such as power stations, ports and transport depots. Under section 20 of the IPA, no person may enter a protected place without the permission of the authority in charge. Doing so is an offence carrying a fine of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 2 years.

This offence becomes particularly relevant where an artist enters an area they are not meant to access in order to create artwork. For example, in Fricker Oliver v Public Prosecutor, Fricker trespassed into SMRT’s Changi train depot, a protected place, and spray-painted the words ‘McKoy Banos” on a train carriage. Fricker was convicted under the PAPPA (as the law then stood), and on appeal received a 4-month imprisonment sentence for the trespass charge, in addition to sentences for his other charges. Were the same conduct to occur today, the entry charge would fall under the IPA.

It is worth distinguishing this from criminal trespass under the Penal Code. The IPA offence is confined to gazetted protected places, and is concerned with national security and the integrity of critical infrastructure. Criminal trespass under section 411 of the Penal Code is broader. It applies to any entry onto property in another person’s possession, where the entry is made with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. For example, a person who enters the staff area of a shopping mall or private construction site without permission, intending to commit vandalism, could be caught under the Penal Code even if the location is not a gazetted protected place.

Public nuisance

A person commits an offence of causing public nuisance under section 268 of the Penal Code if he causes either common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or people within the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. This offence carries a fine of up to $2,000, and/or 3 months’ imprisonment.

In the context of public artwork, this offence could potentially be engaged where the process of creating the artwork obstructs the public’s use of the space. For example, if an artist spray paints the wall of an underpass, passers-by may crowd the underpass, creating an obstruction or safety hazard.

Mischief

Mischief, as defined in the Penal Code, refers to an act that results in the reduction of value or utility or destruction of property. In doing the act, the perpetrator must have intended to cause, or know he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or another person. This offence carries a fine and/or a 2-year imprisonment term.

In the context of public artwork, this could be relevant where the materials used to create the artwork damage the underlying surface belonging to another person. For example, an artist spray-paints a mural onto the exterior wall of a gazetted shophouse, using chemical-based spray paint that corrodes and discolours the protected wall. If the artist knew that the paint was likely to damage the heritage surface, and the damage does reduce the value of the building, both the mental element (intention or knowledge) and the damage element would be made out.

Can the Property Owner or Relevant Authority Remove the Artwork?

As a general legal principle, property owners and occupiers retain broad rights over what happens on their property. This generally includes the right to remove unauthorised alterations, markings or installations, whether or not the alterations amount to an offence.

In the Mountbatten incident, SMRT, as the entity managing the walkway outside the MRT station, would generally have the right to clean or remove the artwork, regardless of whether or not the artist’s actions amounted to vandalism, mischief, or any other offence.

Where the unauthorised artwork does cause actual damage (e.g. discolouration, corrosion, etc), the property owner or occupier may also have a civil claim founded in the tort of trespass to land against the artist for the resulting costs. This could include the cost of restoration works, cleaning fees, etc. Such a claim would be separate from, and could be pursued in addition to, any criminal prosecution.

It follows that public artwork can be removed even where no offence has technically been committed. Ownership and management rights over a space allow the relevant party to decide what may remain on their property, independent of whether the artist’s conduct crosses any particular criminal threshold.

How Can Artists Create Public Artwork Legally?

Given the range of laws potentially in play, artists who wish to create public artwork should take a few practical steps to stay within legal bounds:

• Identify who manages the space: Before starting any work, artists should find out which entity is responsible for the location, as this will determine who needs to be approached for permission.
• Seek approval in advance: Artists should contact the relevant entity and seek approval for their artwork, whether their artwork is permanent or temporary. They should not assume that a lack of objection amounts to implied approval.
• Clarify the materials and methods to be used: Artists should be conscious not to use any materials that could damage the underlying surface.

Artists can consider working with the National Arts Council directly to navigate the approval process, as they are familiar with the requirements and may be able to facilitate introductions to the relevant landowners or managers.

—

The Mountbatten power-washing incident is a timely reminder that public artwork exists at the intersection of creative expression and the law. While the law does not set out to punish artistic expression, the reality is that creating artwork in a public space without approval can expose an artist to legal implications.

The key takeaway for artists is to obtain permission before creating artwork in a public space, identify the correct authority to approach, and be conscious of the materials and methods to be used. Doing so allows creativity to be expressed without unnecessary legal risk.

If you have been charged with an offence relating to vandalism, trespass, or mischief in connection with public artwork, you may wish to consult a criminal lawyer. A criminal lawyer can advise you on the strength of the case against you, help you understand your rights during investigations, and represent you in dealing with the police or in court proceedings.